Monica Shenouda, Luzak-Lindner Fellow at the University of Virginia Art Museum, will offer lunchtime gallery talk discussing selected Japanese artworks in the permanent collection. According to the press release, "Shenouda will discuss the works on paper in terms of their vernacular use, their pictorial style and the way in which they evidence both tradition and modernity." 155 Rugby Road. 924-3592.

12 comments

John Ruemmler March 2nd, 2007 | 3:39pm

I suggest we install the lights with paint ball turrets which fire automatically at vehicles which enter the inetrsection when the light is red, thus both punishing and shaming the drivers.

Engineer March 2nd, 2007 | 4:25pm

A little known fact about most traffic modeling is that up to 2 cars are allowed to pass in the red phase, and there is a time delay before the apposing lanes are allowed their green time. This accounts for "sneakers". In other words, the red is a soft line. Cameras make it a hard line. As any traffic engineer knows, when you fundamentally change the patterns or expectations like this, there will be a significant adjustment. The usual way to try and make up for this is with large obnoxious signs warning of the change. Even then, it doesn't always go well.

So, now that we have finally admitted that police can never keep up with the laws of the road - and they can go concentrate on real criminals, when will the state inspections be putting speed regulators in our cars?

clem's bud March 5th, 2007 | 9:40am

Why not post a cop with a shotgun at the intersection of Rio and 29 , this would be the least expensive and most effective deterrent. He would also keep away those pesky beggers.

Steve March 5th, 2007 | 4:27pm

Clem, don't give the police any ideas. OK?

It seems to me they shoot and kill enough citizens already. Most recently, a 16-year-old boy!

Hans K March 6th, 2007 | 3:38pm

Finally an expose that transcends ideological lines! Both from a safety point of view and a civil liberties point of view, these cameras are a bad idea. Can the Hook take their public service farther and sponsor an online petition to let our local government officials know how we oppose this disguised regressive taxation designed to line their pockets rather than protect us.

Liberal Against Libertarian BS March 7th, 2007 | 10:20am

Private rights on public roads? Infringing on civil liberties? I don't think so. Remember, driving is a privilege, NOT a right, there need to be rules of order in place on PUBLIC roadways.

-TBG

Liberal Against Libertarian BS March 7th, 2007 | 11:38am

Yeah, ok, your quote totally justifies why people should blow through red lights. Right to travel does not equate to right to possess a driver's license. What next? Drunk drivers shouldn't have their licenses revoked because they have places to go like everyone else?

Kevin Cox March 7th, 2007 | 12:01pm

Liberal Against Libertarian BS,

Calm down and take a deep breath. Who said that they want to justify blowing through red lights? Nobody. You seem downright rabid when you jump to conclusions and diss people with no justification. There are good reasons to question the wisdom of cameras. I don't run red lights and I don't like it when people do but I sure am not ready to support technology as questionable as the cameras.

Steve March 7th, 2007 | 12:45pm

quote >> What next? Drunk drivers shouldn't have their licenses revoked because they have places to go like everyone else?"

30 years ago, and before the birth of MADD, the best place to set up a sobriety checkpoint was on Route 53 on both sides of the Fraternal Order of Police lodge about 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. And that's a fact, Jack! :)

TrafficEngineeringstudent March 17th, 2007 | 10:38pm

Hey Engineer,

It does not seem like you have studied your traffic engineering well. Traffic Signals are not designed for so-called 'sneakers', or red-light runners.

First, I would like to ask the people here if you have ever run a red light?

Gene December 30th, 2007 | 6:56pm

Before red light cameras were activated in Fairfax County, VA. red light cam advocates wrongly claimed the yellow lights were adequate at proposed red light cam sites in the county. Instead of implementing prescribed engineers safety countermeasures that work, officials deliberately opted to operate red light cameras instead. On 10/1/2000, the first Fairfax County red light cam was activated at RT7 and Towlston Rd., a notoriously dangerous intersection. After nine months of dismal cam results, the yellow lights were increased just one half second. "Red light running" dropped about 70 percent as a result. Although much better from a safety standpoint, the yellow lights nevertheless were still inadequate. After twenty additional months of cam enforcement, and again dismal results to show for it, the yellow lights were increased a second time, this time to 5.50 seconds (where they should have been from the beginning). "Red light running" at this historically dangerous intersection dropped to almost nothing as a result and the cam plug was eventually pulled. You see, most of the "red light running" at this historically dangerous intersection wasn't so deliberate after all, at least not on the part of unsuspecting motorists. Instead of telling the public the safety facts about the lights, red light cam officials simply told the public their red light camera worked, which any decent person would know was dishonest. Finally, the yellow light increases at RT7 and Towlston Rd. were not by any any means the only ones at red light camera sites here in northern Virginia. Indeed there were many, all a top secret of the red light camera crowd.

So why do you suppose people who want to target unuspecting motorists with precision guided camera$ don't want the public to know matters of fact about the lights, unlike the inherently dangerous cameras a truly serious safety subject for everyone?

Larry Duncan October 2nd, 2009 | 11:13pm

I know there's a reason for the dilemma zone, and that it factually works. Why do the integrity of where it's published always try to go against it, as if it would change.
It's the LAW that will assist a person who has acquired an incident with the dilemma zone, and applying certain rights you'll win your case in court, pursuant to issues of Due Process, Equal Rights, and other Common Laws.
So, I don't think scaring people who experience the dilemma zone is a good idea.
Driver,
Larry Duncan(California)